The Sun. — London, England, 1818-03-14 00:00:00

been dome for the presttvation of the poblic peace, the persons doing' them .ought to be pro tected,' . 87. e. He would agree that there might be cases in which officers acting for the public safety ought to be indetnnitied. But from whence was she it u to be derived ? Undoubtedly the public purse ought to pay for the public safety. When, however, the public officer had injured in dividuals, should they pay for the public safety and go without redress ? This principle must be so clear and demonstrable, that it would be a waste of words to talk about it. But the Bill did not enact that individuals must go without redress. Was there any thing so monstrous and unjust as that they should ? But if he held this principle theoretically, he could practically afford the House a recognition of it. He had the mis fortune to live through acts of the most atrocious, barbarous, and unexampled injustice, in Ireland, the actors in which were protected aftet wards by two Bills of Indemnity. He could therefore speak from what he had witnessed, and for the facts of the case he was going to state, he pledged his truth, honour, and veracity. It was that of a respectable merchant, who was absolutely rob bed of his property by one of those Acts of In demnity, -and thus lie had paid the price of the public protection. At the end of the year 1793, or the bea,itining of 1799, a person of the name • of Scott, a merchant dealing largely in corn in Ireland, was apprehended by a person whose na bad made sonic noise in that House, he meatst Sir Fitzget :aid, on a charge allaying convey ed some pikes to Ross in a barrel of corn. Bail was offered for hint to the. anlOlllit of 100,000/. and his (Sir J.'s) brother was one of the persons who offered to become his securi•y. He was taken prisoner from his house to Clontnel, and after be ing detained five or six days, an-offer was made to set hilts at large on bail being given for 20,0001. But lie said " No, you have robbed me, and, blasted my character so that it can never he re trieved, but by toy ;oink; to trial." He became a bankrupt, and the corn in his stores was sold at a great loss. He brought his action against Sir Judkin, and of that right of action' he was de prived by the - Bill of Indemnity. Let any matt lay his hand on his heart and say, whether this Gentleman had not a right to justice. This was the practical illustration he had to offer of the re sult of Acts of so monstrous a nature, amid it also proved, that if the country was to be protected by Bills of this nature, the country should pay the price of them. He felt reluctant to allude to scenes of this nature In the presence of the Noble Lord (Castlereagh); but in his conscience be ac quitted him of knowing of those acts, though it was under his authority that they had been exer cised. His of o conviction was, that by pass ing those Bills the Parliament of Ireland had scaled its own death-warrant. The people fled, and were ready . to take refuge nude,. any Govern ment whatever, rather than remain subject to such a Gok ernment as that ; and therefore if the people had not been severed front the Parliament, the Act of Union never would have been carried ; fur if the people had no protectibn at home, they w ou ld lo o k for it any where. He should move to insert in the place he had mentioned these words "By discharging front the politic revenue the amount of any award given by a Jury." The other amendment which lie proposed to offer was clause at the end of the first enacting clause of the Bill, to this effect l—" Provided always, that Nothing in this Act he construed to discharge or indemnity any person against whom- any action bad been brought for the exercise of undue seve rity against persons apprehended." Gentlemen would admit that there might he doubts entertain ed on the subject, and therefore should not object to putting it past all doubt. He mold, ask, what `was meant by the words " advised and done For on looking hack to the former Acts, he (mind these words in the English, but nor in the Irish Act. Why, if they Were necessary to be inserted at all, were they in one Act and not in the other? Perhaps it would he convenient to know, whe ther Gentlemen would recognise the principle he had stated, before the third reading; of the Bill ;, because if not, be should move as an amendment, that the Bill be recommitted. The Right lion. Baronet having sat down for en instant, and having received a hint from the opposite side, tending to negative his idea that Iris principle would be recognised, rose, and said lie should then move the recommitment of the Bill. The SPEAKER said, some difficulty might be felt in this respect in point of form. He was not RWAte that any Bill had been recommitted after the Older for the third reading. The Order was, that the Bill he read a third time this day, if then engrossed. This had been the course, and he did not know of any such course as the coMmitment of a Bill on suck an occasion. But as the present Bill had come engrossed front the Lords, so much was lei . t out as related to the forms of this House. Ltit vvith respect to any ai , eration of the clauses, it was just as open to make then) On the third reading as it could be it the Bill were re-com witted ; and if be were right, hjore the Bill would be open for the alterations of the lion. Bi rOnet, it most be read a third time, when he could propose them on the question that the Bill do pass. Mr. WYNNE said a few words on this point of Order. After a few further remarks from Sir William Burroughs, the. Speaic.vr, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Bathurst, it was decided that the amend ments should he received on the questiOn raised on the passing of the Bill. Sir Lir‘ttoN did not rise to propose any amendment to the Bill, as he thought the niea sure so objectionable, that no atnendments .could snake it palatable. lie considered it -difficult, under any circumstances, to justify the suspensjou of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the suspension were necessary at all, lie would contend'it 'Was as necessary now as it had ever been. He denied that it bad been necessary, and of Chis the.people were sensible. Public opinion: had now passed its childhood. It had gained maturity; and would,. be trusted„mark its sense attic late proccedhigS at the ensuing General Election. The House then divided, when the numbers uere as follows : Ayes Noes 23 Majority in favour of the ad readin,s.. 59 i;gurt , ottt - rose to trove that tbere sbOidd be added a 'clause, after the first enacting 'clause of tile Bill, founded on a'prineiple which Minis ters bad already said had their approbation; It went to provide that the Indemnity should not extend to any act of undue severity that might have been exercised on persons arrested and de tained during the suspension at the Habeas Corpus Act. _ . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to /hi, amendment, as it appeared to him wholly unne cessary. The Sheriff o 1 other Officer was justi fied by this Bill in arresting and detaining any per son against whom he might have a writ, hut not in treating the party with undue rigour or cruelty. The, Bill, as it now stood, only indemnified the parties for the apprehension'and detention of per sons Charged with treasonable practices, in such a way as by law was considered necessary for such apprehension and such detention. Why then should a proviso be introduced to except that which was not in tact embraced by the Bill ? The same question had been started in 1801, • when the answer now given was deemed satis factory. Zslt. P. MOORE considered the Bill, as it at pre ''sent stood, to give indemnity to all persons "rho had acted tinder -the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, however wicked and enormous their conduct might have been. He entered his most solemn • protest against every operation carried into effect undo -the present system, which he contended had introduced a bastard Constitution in place of the legii•imate Constitution of England. Mr. IV:SMITH spoke in favour of the amend ment. Ile entered at some length into the case of Ogden, which he' held to he one that, instead of exciting laughter, ought to move compassion towards the party, and compunction in the minds of Ministers that such a case had occurred in this country. He for one wished to *know, if those who had treated that man with undue severity, as it appeared, could be prosecuted if the clause now proposed should be rejected ;? He wished to know, if the -parties, on being proceeded against, could plead the Act of Indemnity in bar to the act ion Mile ',ATTCRNEY - GENERAL said, unquestionably not. Mr. W. SMITn was very glat! of that. Ile thought the object his Hon. 'Friend had in view in a great• measure gained, since this statement had been made. Ile, nevertheless, wished the clause to be adopted, that no doubt whatever might remain. lie thought this desirable, as'he believed there were scores of jailers and under lings in the .country, who were so deficient in common - sense as well as common feeling; that they could believe they Were recommending thern selves to - their superiors by treating those coin tnitte►l to their care with severity. Ldrd - CASTLEREAGH thought the greatest in convenience would result from adOpting the ATllendrucut, as nothing was more d►►ngerous than the introduction of unnecessary qualificatiOns to an enactment. The law had heel► Feld down with such precision by the Attorney-General, that no doubt could be entertained on the subject. The Indemnity Bill went merely to justify the appre hension and detention of those tvho bad been rested for treasonable practices, and did not justify cruelty to the persons so Confined. Persons who had acted thug might be brought before a Jury. It was asked if they ►night plead this Bill in bar to the action. They might plead the ge neral issue, and give in the act,' but the Judge would leave it to the Jury to determine whether the confinement the parties had suffered was that confinement which had been meant by the IRK', and he apprehended there could be no question, if they had been treated with cruelty, that sncheon duct could not he jut•tified under the present Bill- The hardships which Ogden was said to have en dured, he wished it to he understood, were not to be considered as proved. They had been strongly asserted on the • one side, and as Strongly denied on the other. The Bill did not go to justify all sorts of cruelties - and enormities, as had been stated, nor did it touch the cases of spies and informers. Mr. SMYTH (of Cainbridge) described the Act to go to indemnify " every act or proceeding" that might he proved to have taken place in arrest ing or detaining persons suspected of treasonable practices. The clause, now proposed could do no harm, and might do some good. Mr. BATtitt . as.r asserted the.qucstion now raised to have .been mooted in 1801, on a Bill which, on this point, was verbatim the same with the pre- Sent. The answer . then given was similar to that which bad now been offered, and this was at that ptriod deemed satisfactory. An opinion given in that 'House on the meaning of ri'law was entitled to great weight, but the opinion given on this subject gained - additional importance in the in stance referred to, as coming from 'the Attorney- Generdl of that day, who was now the'Noble Lord at the head of the law. The acts of cruelty Opposed by the Right Hon: Baronet would not be covered by this Bill, which went but to give indemnity for the apprehension_ and detention of those who had beets confined. 'lie replied to what bad been said on the subjectof Ogden'S case, who :lad reeeired surgical assistance in town he coold hot lime had in the country, in consequence of which .he. had described himself to be ." a new man," as he had been cured of W complaint'Which 'had afflicted hint for more than 20 years.. • . Mr. LYTTLETON censured the manner in which Ogden's . casc had . heen treated in that House, and also the rapidity with which the present Bill had been - carried through its stages. lie was not sa tiffetl with what had been stated 'on the . other side. To him the Bill appeared to be so worded that every thing which had taken place might he defended under it. Whatever the opiniOn . of the Noble Lord who had been refeired.to might have been when he W 9- Attortiey.'General, by no Means rotliiiVed' 0S - a matter of Course that - . he would hold the same opinion hereafter when this.. Bill should have passed into a law. Those, hOW e'ver, 'on the opposite . side, wee so much in the habit of making what was said in that House law, lhafther could colisider• an opinion' gii.en thief; which suited their purpose, .to be equal to law. Be contlen.ned the proceedings on which this Bill was founded, which he held to he one of the rti'(st iin'peetinent . and •niischievohs farces that had - ever been periormed ;• he held it to be a mockery to say alai any inquiry itaa 'taken place at all. Lord CAsTt,set3Malt and Mi*.LYTTLEToi( seVe• rally explained. Sir S. RoSiterA Said the Act Went to indemnify for " Any matter or thing done for the pto'pose of confining persons . Chatged with certain prac tices. He did not set, therefore, how an action could be maintained that should be brought against a person for tiny act that had been done' for such a purpose. If it should be argued in a ,Court of Law, that any " necessary" act Was memo, the Court would ask why the word " necessary" had not appeared in the Bill. He most conscientiously did not believe that such a construction would be put upon the Act as his Learned Friend had anti cipated. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had said, the opinion given in that House was strengthened by the circumstance of its having come from the Noble Lord now at the head of the law, who was then Attorney-General. But was lie then at the head of the law He was not, and the Noble Lord would not now h old himself to be bound as Judge to the opinion he delivered then as Attorney-General. If it was intended only to indemnify for such apprehensions and detentions as were necessary to secure the persons it ho had been confined, let the n•tn•d •' necessary" be introduced into the Bill, and he would give up the clause. The SOLICITOR•GENRRAL considered the argu ment of the Learned Gentleman to go thus—that the Bill ivas to be considered, as it no►v stood, to have the sante meaning as if, instead of wanting the weird " oecessary," it contained the word " unnecessary." He held that all " unnecessary" acts of rigour Would be protected by the Bill as it at present stood. This was the whole argo- Ment nu the other side of the House. 'But' be was of opinion no lawyer could contend with any hopes of success that such was really the mean ing of the Act, for if that were done which were " unnecessary," it could not be for the purposes set forth in the Bill. If any " unnecessary" ri gour were exercised, it could not have been for the purpose of apprehending or detaining the pat ties ; it must have been tur sonic other purpose, tied would therefore not be covered by this Bill. The word " - necessary," if introthiced, would therefore be superfluous. He objected 'tea - the clause proposed, because it went to put it into the heads of the people that acts were proved to have been committed which were denied, and it might be the . cause of actions being brought which otherwise• would never he thought of -by those supposed to be aggrieved. Mr. Raoucnast.—:When the difference between the opinions of the two'last Speakers - was seen— when there was all the difference of " aye" or " no" between them, appealed to the House if the meaning of the Bill ought 'to he left thus vagtiely expressed—if they'ooght not to 'blear tip their way as ' they went, that no doubt on the subject might remain. - But the word necessary was objected to as surplusage. How long, he could wish to knom, bad it buen tl►e practice to make Acts of Parliament so concise that not one snperfluOns word could be adinitted ? The prac tice must have arisen since this'Bill had been en grossed. To be' convinced of this, it Was only necessary to look at the Bill now before the House. It would be seen that it mentioned " disturbances dangerous to the peace." This might be thought sufficient, but to this was add ed, "and tranquillity." in the same way it spoke of "terror," and then added "intimidation." Where the author took his style front he knew not, if he might call it style. But lie remembered Lord Kenyein, speaking of the composition of an auctioneer, bad denied that the word " style" was applicable to it, but had called it his (the auctioneer's) penmanship. The author's pen manship then went on to state, that it was fit means should be taken to keep the - information which had been received " secret" and " undis closed." Even in the very clause into which it had been suggested the word ".necessary" might he introduced, they found the expressions, " for or on account of any act, matter, or thiag." But there this prolixity was to stop, and not a word more was to he added which could not bear the most scrupulous criticism. He wished for some deviation from the fine classical style which it was thought right thenceforward to main tain, to introduce one little word, even though► it should be unnecessary, which however he did not conceive it to be-. He contended the opinion given by Lord Ellenborough when lie was Atrorney-General might nor be the same which be would now hold on the present mea sure; and he should like to hear the Attorney-. General endeavouring to prove that the 'opinion he himself entertained was a second One, because such had been formerly entertained by the Noble Lord himself, as it appeared, not from East's Re ports, but from Cohbett's Parliamentary Debates. To him (Mr. Brougham) it appeared that the clause would be liable to the construction which had beet► put upon it on that side' of t'it In common pat lance that was said to be done for a particular purpose, when more than enough was done. He doubted not he was then affording an instance of this, by urging sevaral arguments when one would beguile sufficient ; or at least by doing what was not very uncommon in that House, namely, by making a long speech when a shott Otte would do. I\l r. W. WYNNE did not think the proposed clause important but had no objection to the introduction °Hite word " neessary" into the Bid. He did not know whether any decision had ever been come to on the Act of the 24th George 11. authorising Magistrates todetain perbons under certain circtim stances;that could in any way guide their r i 'pions on 'the present occasion. Sir ..lon N NEWPORT then said he would, with the leave of the . House, withdraw his clause. ' The clause Was. then withdrawn. Bunaotions - Moved a clause, providing that the Indemnity should not eSt end . to persons arrested in consequence Of information maliciously given. He said that the question upon this clause was 'very flinch the some as that on the clause last debated, only that the Clawse'tvhich he notv moved . wits stil; more comprehensive; and went to a much greater length. The clause *as theri'brought up and read a first ThCATTORNCY G‘E'.NERAL said, if the 11ouse . , ivere'io . ariopl th'e keit may i oultl 1 ? 11 at once to reject the Bill. Upon what principle %vat the Bill founded ? It was this, that *hat had been done to apprehend and dettin persons Was done fairly and i)ontifide, and therefore that Ma - 7 gistratee and others sinitild be protected for ang .act done with this good intention. The whole effect of this clause would be to authorise an in' vestigation into all the circiutistances On the Magistrate acted—to bring out what was the evidence brought before him—and, in short, t° allow that to he doee which it was the whole oh" ject of the Bill of 'Nth:limit , ' to prevent. If the Hoitse was inclined to reject the Bill, let it be re7' jected; but do not allow it to pass with a clause which would undermine its whole object. The clanse was then rcjected without a diViSiOr: Sir W. 81111ROUGIIS then referred to that pas .. sage of the preamble of the Bill which stated thn, it was expedient the information on which I\V e: gistrates acted should t emain secret and undie closed. fie recapitulated the six various Bills of Indemnity passed since the Revolution till that of . 1801, and said, that-in nut one of them wft-. there any such recital as this, nor any operativfi.elausd for the purpose of secrecy. Ile therefore wished to' know on what principle it was DOW introduced . He admitted, indeed, that it h d heel) introduced in the Bill of 1801. But he hoped the 11011 0 would now reject it. lie moved, that this pas sage of the preamble be omitted. Sir F. Flooo said that the digcnnt e nted heart oh the other side Of the Hruse might Ir satisfitd without declamatory Speeches made ad captandurri vulgus.—(Laughter !)—This Bill was founded or). a Report made by the first characters in the king,'' dom, among whom was the Noble Secretary for, the Foreign Department.--(Laughter !)—He had seen it stated in an Opposition Paper that the Duke of Wellington should have been. a meinhe-i' of that Committee. He thought he should, for he had proved himself the fittest of men for that purpose, as he had. reconciled the jarring interest`;. Of the powers of Europe, and given peace to the . world. He was glad it had not: been necessary to extend the Suspension Bill to Ireland. Thant - 0 to the people of Ireland—thanks to' the Magi strates of Ireland—thanks to the excellent Grip vernmeht of that country, which had made the people of Ireland set an example of tranquillity the people of England.—(Laughter The motion was then rejected without division. Sir JOHN NEWPnRT then proposed an arnend i i meta in the preamble, setting forth drat 01. 1 ! ( damages which should be awarded by a Jur! , against any Magistrate or person, acting authority, for any commitment, shoUld be de" frayed out of the public purse. Fie:- - .:stated Oa' it was-always usual, in cases of copture;lfdamag ( ' were awarded against the commanding officer. .the amount of them was paid from the revenue, viz. front the Droits of the AdaliraltY - The case to which this clause would extend ‘rfi l perfectly analogous. Ile then ntoed a Clause td this effect. The ATTORNEY-GRNRRAL said, the amendmen t would be inconsistent with the preamble, which set forth that no proce••cliogs relative to th e .c.a.6" mentioned therein should he instituted in a Col r .o ot Justice. To insert the clause would make " e preamble a collection ot unintelligible nonseio' Sir J. NEWPORT said he intended, if the arnen;r - ment in - the preamble were agreed to, to propose, a corresponding in the operative part 01 the Bill. Therefore 'be submitted that there would he neither inconsistency nor nonsense is The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that even if n il operative clause to the effect mentione,l by th e 1-lon. Baronet were introduced, till there teoulti be a total contradiction in the preamble, if the amendment now proposed was agreed to. Mr. W. SMITII spoke in favour of the amen'" went. The principles of justice required that s"° l an•arnendment should be introduced into the Bil ,t " The amendment was then rejected without tilt W. Bußnovcris,roseto propose an amendment 11; latire to cases in which houses had been broken into to set arms and papers without warrant. • He moved that the W‘',l 4 in .the Bill," person or persons," in the part which retatr" such cases, should be omitted, for the purpose of inscrti ll t ° the words " Magistrate, Justice of the Peace," &c. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the Bill as it stood 131.4 plied all that was intended lry the amendment. Th e amendment was then rejected without a division. AT r. .1;11.. AM movedUGll the insertion of the w ar "; '' which may have been necessary," after the words, " or on account of any act, matte?, or thing." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thongirt the insertion these words completely unnecessary, and went. to weakelt principle of the Cotsnomi Law, which supposed that n'l'tt's any persons were indemnified for certain acts, that such were necessary. The only effect of insertirg these word s would he to cast a diubt upon this principle. Mr. TIERNEY wifdred to correct an opinion that insert :1 these words would violate a principle of law, since - the f% was, that this Bill violated the principle of ail law. i lje therefore wished to know whether it was tau much on bov s ,,,, of the people of EngThind to require the introduction of t s 3 words to slew how far the Constitution was to be set nought. Mr. LOCK HART said, the rules of Common Law, V. ° cn implied all that was contained in the words, were suflicienthpio uniler,t sud s and always acted on in the Coat ts Of Law. words were therefor,. needless. After a few words in furour of the Amendinent front "`" W. WYNNE, the House divided— Ayes 34 Noes 149 Majority against the Amendincnt..-110 . , On the question that the Bill pass, Mr. BROUGHAM . said he ban not the least' intention, 1 , 1 renew the discussion of the - Bill; but he felt it to be his oaq: to state, that not one .of the reasons which he had tirito_. against this Bill was in the least shaken by any thing that ho" been said upon the subject, or by the result of any Of divisions. The whole Bin remained as ohjectiobable, and it principle as detestable, as ever. . • . Mr, TEERNEY.—He had not troubled the House with on e Word on this Bill, for he felt it imiiessible to add any to te to the unanswerable'argillTiS urge d against it, 15 par ticulaliY, with so much ability by Ilk thui. Friend who spoke last.. ". s. he thought it his duty in these fe.w . worits to enter his pro te against the whole measiire, which he Ihoagfit one of the nio' detestable that had ever been propoied to Parliament. Mr. WYNNE, spoke shortly in favour of the Bill. Mr. I'. MOOItF spoke against it. The Gallery wag then cleared for a division, but none Oak place.—The Bill was passed. -t The County Coroners' Bill was brought in, and read a 51-' time. . C The other Orders of the Day were then disposed 0 , , 3 the House adjourned at Half-past Ten &Una. LONDON: Prititcd by 3. B. C,II2STAIII.I, of No, 29, ( : e " - Oni)Ofid-flecet, QueeolsOnce; publisliod - 1)V IetIVPS, .o£T 7,, South 'Molton-street, at' kit • 411 ' . Office, No. 112, Straud ; 'where, Advoti,senients,. Of'i e ' 5f Letters, (post-paid) mast be aildretsed. s 'ke Fzul .Pi, 1 •yie 'BN Ch_•• I '4l tkQI